Greetings All,

No, this is not necessarily a rehash of an overdone topic, but rather a focusing and sharing of recent insights I've acquired to hopefully provide some empirical clarity on the subject. As always, I will make my thoughts and attempt to keep this discussion accessible to all knowledge levels.  To start, this is how I define and will use the term consciousness from this point forward in our discussion: 

 Consciousness - the awareness suggested by an organism's observed behavioral responses to stimuli.

I prefer that definition because we cannot assess organisms, which include humans, as being meaningfully aware if they do not observably respond or react to external affects or influence. You should understand that this will not be a discussion of some ethereal quality or essence, but rather a discussion of the attributes and emergence of human awareness suggested by the components of brain structure and function as current science provides.  As current science provides, the primary imperative of brain function is homeostasis. 

The primary purpose of brain function isn't the production of thought, behavioral expression, or that meaningful awareness suggestive of consciousness.  The purpose of brain function is homeostasis, which is our brain's efforts to maintain its metabolic balance.  Our brain is an organic machine that's essentially fueled by a combination of oxygen and glucose.  Maintaining a stabile balance of that fuel within its structure is the goal of brain function.  The neural activity our brain engages consumes about 20% of our body's overall energy uptake, which is remarkable given our brain averages about 5% of body mass.  Everything our brain neurally experiences impacts its metabolic balance and that impact triggers those brain responses that produce consciousness. So, what are those brain responses?

Consciousness is our brain’s response to the destabilizing metabolic effects of our neural experiences. Everything we experience sensorially impacts our central nervous system and, ultimately, our brain's metabolic balance.  When that occurs, our brain responses engage to restore that balance.  To restore that balance, our brain must engage responses to increase its resources and neutralize or suppress that impactful neural activity causing its metabolic imbalance.  Think of that impactful neural activity as a loud and continuous ringing (neural resonance) and our brain's effort to neutralize that sound with its noise-cancelling technology. 

Our brain responds to the resonant neural effects of stimuli with reciprocal neural feedback matching the frequency of that neural resonance.  The best example of this fete is what happens in the brain when we dream.  Dreaming, broadly, involves increased neural activity in the brain during sleep.  That activity occurs as the brain becomes increasingly sensitive to sensory stimuli amid the sleep cycle.  That stimuli engage the interpretive response systems of our brain, which matches the frequency or impact of that stimuli with its stores of sensory experience. The imagery we experience as dreams is how our dreaming brain identifies or interprets the impact of the neural resonance we experience in sleep.  That interpretation is sufficient for most of us to dismiss them from memory upon arousal from sleep.  Our dreams do not typically engage our physical responses because the neural resonance causing them does not emerge from concurrent physical reality.   

From my perspective, our brain engages in two types of responses to stimuli, which I term functional and behavioral.  Functional involves those brain processes associated with stimuli perception and assessment.  Behavioral responses are those expressed as the observable behaviors indicative of consciousness.  So, you might ask, what are these responses relative to brain structure and function?  Well, science suggests to me that all observable behavioral responses produced by our brain's functional responses emerge from the thalamus.  

I've recently gained a new perspective of thalamic function and how it appears to express our behavioral responses.  If there is interest, I will explore this with you in my next post as it involves a discussion of reflexive and reflective behavior and the nature of mind and consciousness relative to both. Until then, I welcome your thoughts.

Edited August 18, 20241 yr by DrmDoc
grammar

4 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Consciousness - the awareness suggested by an organism's observed behavioral responses to stimuli.

 

If it's all about responses, where did all that human creativity come from ?

 

Why did Ugg wonder what lay over the horizon ?

Why did Newton think about the apple or Kekule about the serpent ?

Where did Beethoven's 9th come from or Wordsworth's daffodils or Coleridge's Mariner ?

What inspired Bosch or Michaelangelo or Monet ?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

If it's all about responses, where did all that human creativity come from ?

 

Why did Ugg wonder what lay over the horizon ?

Why did Newton think about the apple or Kekule about the serpent ?

Where did Beethoven's 9th come from or Wordsworth's daffodils or Coleridge's Mariner ?

What inspired Bosch or Michaelangelo or Monet ?

The answer to all of your questions is that they are all responses to the experiences of the individuals you've referenced.  Relative to brain function, the neural activity that generates creativity, thought, and art emerge as a reflection of the resonant neural impact our experiences have on the metabolic balance of brain function.  As I explained, all of ouf experiences have a resonant neural impact on our brains metabolic balance, which is our brain's imperative to maintain. In that effort, our brain generates opposing neural activity matching the frequency of that destabilizing neural resonance.  I will cover this more specifically in a subsequent postings on reflexive and reflective behaviors relative to brain function. I appreciate your continued interest.

Hello All,

In my initial post, I described our brain as an organic machine whose primary functional imperative is to maintain its metabolic balance (homeostasis) against the destabilizing affect of stimuli.  The whole of our brain function--its responses and activity--is to nullify or suppress the destabilizing neural affect of our sensory experiences.  The core of brain structure and, therefore, the core of brain function is the thalamus, which isn't necessarily because of its literal position within our overall brain structure. 

Our thalamus earns its functional prominence, as some of you may already know, from it being the primary structure that all neural pathways initially transit before entering and exiting the upper regions of our central nervous system and brain structure.  As the first stop for all neural input and output, thalamic function is the first line of our brain's neural defense and action against the resonant (destabilizing) neural affect of sensory stimuli.  Those observable behaviors suggestive of consciousness that we engage are the physical expression of our Thalamus neural defense and action against the destabilizing affect our sensory experiences cause.  Our thalamus engages two distinct types of behavioral responses to our experiences, reflexive and reflective.

The initial response of our thalamus to stimuli is invariably reflexive behavior.  Reflexive behaviors primarily involve our instinctive reactions, which are shown by our physical responses to sudden sounds and tactile stimuli, such as a loud bang or a touch on the shoulder from behind.  When the resonant effects of our sensory experiences persist beyond the reflexive responses of the thalamus, it then engages reflective behaviors.  Reflective behaviors are those the thalamus engages in response to the neural feedback it receives from other brain regions impacted by the resonant neural effects our sensory experiences cause. 

If interest persist, I will explore and attempt to explain these thoughts a bit further in a subsequent post.  I welcome your thoughts.

 

 

Good morning All,

Before I proceed further, I thought I'd provide a bit of clarity on my use of certain terms relative to brain function:

Neural resonance/reverberance - I use this term to describe my perception of a continuously repetitive chain of afferent and efferent neuron firings.

Reflexive behaviors - the physical expressions and behaviors our thalamic neural activations appear to execute in direct response to afferent stimuli.

Reflective behaviors-the physical expressions and behaviors our thalamic neural activations appear to execute in direct response to efferent stimuli.

In my previous posts, I shared my perception of the behaviors our thalamus activations appear to execute in response to the metabolically impactful nature of sensory experiences.  Our experiences alter the metabolic balance of our brain function via the resonant affect those experiences have on our thalamus.  That affect doesn't dissipate without counter measures or resonance from the thalamus and from surrounding brain structures via their reciprocal neural connections to the thalamus.  The counter resonance our thalamus activity engages manifest first as reflexive behaviors, which are then followed by or in conjunction with reflective behaviors.

When the resonant effects our experiences cause persist beyond our thalamus' reflexive responses to quell those experiences, the neural reverberance they cause afferently radiates into surrounding brain structure from the thalamus.  Those brain structures, whose functions are affected by the frequency of that neural reverberance, begin to match or reflect that frequency in neural feedback to the thalamus.  That reflective resonance has a cancelling or deadening affect on the neural resonance emanating from the thalamus.

When the reflective neural resonances from other brain structures reaches the thalamus, their impact alters the resonance responses of the thalamus to that which diminishes, suppresses, or disperses the impact of our sensory experience on its functions.  Those reflective behaviors our thalamus executes in response to reflective resonance from other brain regions are those that most readily suggest the thought processes indicative of organisms that appear to possess a mind. 

I felt compelled to discuss my thoughts on this topic here for basically the very reason suggested by the things I’ve discussed, which is the nature of consciousness relative to brain function. This topic is important to me and should be for you because it offers a compelling view of what may be happening in the brain by the behaviors we observe.  We generally know the function of various brain structures and aspects of our central nervous system.  We know that those functions and aspects work in concert to manifest our behaviors, identity, and consciousness.  What some of us don’t know or clearly understand is the operational aspect, which is specifically how that concert of brain function is conducted.

Metaphorically, we know the various music, strings, horns, and percussions of brain structure and function, but what isn’t clear to all of us is specifically how all of that is orchestrated to produce the extraordinary expressions and behaviors of human consciousness.  Consider, if you will, we know the various stages of brain development and we know how experience and learning alter brain structure, but what is thought and what happens in the brain to produce thought?  For example, consider the autistic brain. 

In an exchange with an autistic individual at this science discussion website, I was informed of the overwhelming nature of their sensory experience.  The experience was described to me as having a gatekeeper who lets everybody in. Yet, that person wrote with such eloquence and focus that I wondered how that was possible?  Now with a clearer perspective of the orchestration or functional exchanges between the various structures of the autistic brain, I have visual picture and a clearer understanding of how their eloquence was possible and where the variance between my brain structure/function and theirs may resided.  I welcome your thought.

Hello All,

In my last post I asked, rhetorically, " what is thought and what happens in the brain to produce thought?"  I believe the answer I gave wasn't as clear as it could have been.  Considering the whole of my comments thus far, thought is a resonant neural effect that emerges from upper brain regions--beyond the thalamus--in response to the affect of sensory experiences.   If we think of the brain as a musical instrument, thought would be the sound that instrument produces.  When we follow that example to one logical conclusion, thought isn't spontaneous--the musical instrument that is brain structure must be played to produce the resonance of consciousness we call thought.

We are not born truly thoughtful beings, which means that we do not emerge from the womb with a fully developed structural instrument capable of producing the dolce or torrid music that is thought.  Thought isn't so much about structural brain development as it is about fine tuning that instrument to produce the harmonious responses essential to the aesthetics of our survival.  Relative to brain structure and function, fine tuning is about building those resonance neural pathways that can produce frequencies essential to hemostasis—essential to sustaining our brain’s metabolic balance against the destabilizing affect of all sensory experience.  I welcome your thoughts.

Reads like word salad and cited no supporting research.

And it's homeostasis not "hemostasis," which is an entirely different thing involving the treatment and healing of wounds.

 

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Reads like word salad and cited no supporting research.

And it's homeostasis not "hemostasis," which is an entirely different thing involving the treatment and healing of wounds.

 

Thank you for the corrections of my misspelling and, so I may provide, for which aspect, statement, or portion of my comments thus far are you requesting supporting citations?  If I may add, my comments were meant to provide a mental image of the processes of brain function in a way that would be understood by those disinterested in the minutia.  If the minutia is your interest, then let's explore the ingredients of my salad which you appear to find unpalatable.

Well, for example, the brain as a musical instrument analogy seems muddled.  It seems to imply an external player - clarinets don't get up and start playing themselves.  Without perhaps intending to, you are inviting in some sort of metaphysical dualism.

Also obscure is lines like

On 8/24/2024 at 9:18 AM, DrmDoc said:

I shared my perception of the behaviors our thalamus activations appear to execute in response to the metabolically impactful nature of sensory experiences.  Our experiences alter the metabolic balance of our brain function via the resonant affect those experiences have on our thalamus.

(would imagine all brain processes involve metabolism, given that neurons are cells with the standard metabolic pathways to keep living)

 

or

 

On 8/24/2024 at 9:18 AM, DrmDoc said:

When the resonant effects our experiences cause persist beyond our thalamus' reflexive responses to quell those experiences, the neural reverberance they cause afferently radiates into surrounding brain structure from the thalamus.  Those brain structures, whose functions are affected by the frequency of that neural reverberance, begin to match or reflect that frequency in neural feedback to the thalamus. 

You seem to have invented your own nomenclature which does not map well onto the definitions usually used in neuroscience.

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

Well, for example, the brain as a musical instrument analogy seems muddled.  

I see…it isn’t omitted citations you want, but rather a discussion of my analogy. For those who have actually perused rather than glanced over my numerous comments on the subject of mind, consciousness, and brain function, they may recall that I routinely refer to the confluence of brain function as a “concert”.  I’ve adhered to music adjacent analogies and themes here and in many of my prior discourse on this topic because I believe they most clearly convey my thoughts, in a relatable way, on the harmony of brain function that must occur to produce attributes of mind and consciousness.

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

It seems to imply an external player - clarinets don't get up and start playing themselves.  Without perhaps intending to, you are inviting in some sort of metaphysical dualism.

I understand your perception but from the outset of this discussion thread, I wrote: 

Quote

You should understand that this will not be a discussion of some ethereal quality or essence, but rather a discussion of the attributes and emergence of human awareness suggested by the components of brain structure and function as current science provides. 

Allow me to correct your perception of implied metaphysics, which was not an implication I intented.  Significant portions of my discussion thus far have encompassed the affect of sensory experience.  Using your analogy, the player of that clarinet would be that experience.  Succinctly, our brain’s neural experience or perception of afferent stimuli via its sensory connection to that stimuli shapes and influences its responses.  I’m certain of little disagreement among science circles that thought is indeed a response of brain function. My perspective is that thought (music) emerges from brain function (clarinet) as an effect of its sensory connection to sensory experience (player).

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

Also obscure is lines like

(would imagine all brain processes involve metabolism, given that neurons are cells with the standard metabolic pathways to keep livin

Your imagination notwithstanding, I wrote in prior comments that the entirety of brain function is devoted to h-o-m-e-o-s-t-a-s-i-s.  (Hope I got the spelling right this time🤞)  The comment you referenced is a synopsis of my prior comments in this discussion thread on the relevance of homeostasis as the basis for all brain activity and responses.

19 hours ago, TheVat said:

You seem to have invented your own nomenclature which does not map well onto the definitions usually used in neuroscience.

Again, from the outset of this discussion thread, I said I would attempt to make my thoughts and "keep this discussion accessible to all knowledge levels."  You might agree that those interested in this topic may not all be neuroscientists, which is why I’ve inserted definitions among my various posts on my use of terms as my discussion progressed.  Indeed, some neuroscientists may object to my “nomenclature” but my comments were not entirely meant for their consumption.  I want to encourage the interest and contribution of non-neuroscientists in the discussion of this topic as I believe it will only enhance my personal insight and enrich my understanding as it has done so often in past discussions.  I appreciate your critique and welcome your continued interest.

Hello All,

I've been wanting to add a bit more to this discussion and so I shall by providing this perspective of thought relative to brain function. In prior statements, I talked about homeostasis as the basis of brain function and briefly how sensory stimuli affects our brain's effort to maintain its metabolic balance. The neural impact of afference (sensory) stimuli on the thalamus affects our brain's effort to maintain its metabolic balance. Our thalamus is the gateway through which sensory stimuli must traverse to reach the upper regions of our brain structure. Those regions respond by producing neural feedback sufficient to suppress the destablizing neural effects resonating from the thalamus. From the neural impact sensory stimuli appears to have on our neural gateway to upper brain structures, we may confidently conclude that thought is a product of the neural interplay between the thalamus and structutes of the brain exterior to the thalamus. More importantly, the neural impulses released by surrounding brain structures in response to thalamic neural resonance doesn't truly become thought until those impluses reach the thalamus. I welcome your response.

Hello All,

Just a final bit about the thalamus, which I believe is more important than most of us may realize. If I were asked where in the brain might we discover the structure that manifest our mental and physically sense of self, my answer would undoubtedly be the thalamus.

OK, I chime in. Your position seems extremely reductionist to me. Striving for homeostasis is more or less what all organs do, so it does not explain much.

As theVat, I also think you have dualist 'residues' in your thinking. Trying to locate consciousness in a part of the brain can be such a residue. Where is consciousness located? There where efferent neural paths meet afferent paths? Isn't there the control room of the homunculus?

Are you sure your ideas are not another version of Dennett's 'Cartesian theater'?

I have nothing against reductionism, but surely against its 'Greedy variant'.

As an analogy: would you explain the workings of a microchip with its striving for equaling out input currents with output currents? (But it does, otherwise it would not work.) No, close to the lowest level, a microchip is transistors, then flip-flops, then logical gates, then adders and subtractors, functional subsystems etc, until you have a full blown computer that is programmable.

It will not be much different (except maybe much more complex...) for the brain and the mind.

12 hours ago, Eise said:

OK, I chime in...

Great! I was hoping someone would.

12 hours ago, Eise said:

Your position seems extremely reductionist to me...

You say that as though it's a bad thing. I preceive reductionism as cutting away the fat from a choice piece of meat or simply defining the key components of a simple equation.

12 hours ago, Eise said:

Striving for homeostasis is more or less what all organs do, so it does not explain much...

I disagree. Homeostasis provides and explains the foundation from which brain function and, ultimately, behavioral expression arises. Within the brain, processing sensory stimuli and information (afference) requires energy and that requirement impacts our brain's ability to maintain its metabolic stability. What our brain does in response to that destablizing impact of sensory afference is what ultimately manifests as emotion, thought, and behavioral expression.

13 hours ago, Eise said:

As theVat, I also think you have dualist 'residues' in your thinking.

Wait...you're not a theVat sockpuppet are you???🤔

13 hours ago, Eise said:

Trying to locate consciousness in a part of the brain can be such a residue. Where is consciousness located? There where efferent neural paths meet afferent paths? Isn't there the control room of the homunculus?

Consciousness...there goes that word again and, as I have often said, consciousness is nothing more to me than the awareness suggested by an organism's observable behavioral responses to stimuli. In my view, consciousness is merely a prerequisite for determining whether an organism has a mind, which is a quality I perceive as entirely distinct. However, since you've mentioned the "C" word here, I believe you mistook my perspective of the thalamus as where we may find some singular, etheral form of self. To clarify, thalamic function plays a singularly major role in how our sense of self manifest.

As I have previously commented, our thalamus is the primary gateway into brain structure for neural afference and, as such, the thalamus is the primary brain structure that is initially impacted by that afference. The thalamus desperses that afferent impact along various neural pathways to various cortical regions throughout brain structure. In turn, those various cortical regions respond to that impact via their reciprocal neural connections. With the reciprocal responses the thalamus receives, it then executes or engages our response to the afference it is or has experienced. In this view, the role of the thalamus is to alert superior brain structures that it has been impacted and the role of those superior brain structure is to deliver feedback defining that impact and how the thalamus should execute a response to that impact.

I welcome your continued interest.

On 8/18/2024 at 11:07 AM, DrmDoc said:

Greetings All,

No, this is not necessarily a rehash of an overdone topic, but rather a focusing and sharing of recent insights I've acquired to hopefully provide some empirical clarity on the subject. As always, I will make my thoughts and attempt to keep this discussion accessible to all knowledge levels.  To start, this is how I define and will use the term consciousness from this point forward in our discussion: 

Consciousness - the awareness suggested by an organism's observed behavioral responses to stimuli.

I prefer that definition because we cannot assess organisms, which include humans, as being meaningfully aware if they do not observably respond or react to external affects or influence. You should understand that this will not be a discussion of some ethereal quality or essence, but rather a discussion of the attributes and emergence of human awareness suggested by the components of brain structure and function as current science provides.  As current science provides, the primary imperative of brain function is homeostasis. 

The primary purpose of brain function isn't the production of thought, behavioral expression, or that meaningful awareness suggestive of consciousness.  The purpose of brain function is homeostasis, which is our brain's efforts to maintain its metabolic balance.  Our brain is an organic machine that's essentially fueled by a combination of oxygen and glucose.  Maintaining a stabile balance of that fuel within its structure is the goal of brain function.  The neural activity our brain engages consumes about 20% of our body's overall energy uptake, which is remarkable given our brain averages about 5% of body mass.  Everything our brain neurally experiences impacts its metabolic balance and that impact triggers those brain responses that produce consciousness. So, what are those brain responses?

Consciousness is our brain’s response to the destabilizing metabolic effects of our neural experiences. Everything we experience sensorially impacts our central nervous system and, ultimately, our brain's metabolic balance.  When that occurs, our brain responses engage to restore that balance.  To restore that balance, our brain must engage responses to increase its resources and neutralize or suppress that impactful neural activity causing its metabolic imbalance.  Think of that impactful neural activity as a loud and continuous ringing (neural resonance) and our brain's effort to neutralize that sound with its noise-cancelling technology. 

Our brain responds to the resonant neural effects of stimuli with reciprocal neural feedback matching the frequency of that neural resonance.  The best example of this fete is what happens in the brain when we dream.  Dreaming, broadly, involves increased neural activity in the brain during sleep.  That activity occurs as the brain becomes increasingly sensitive to sensory stimuli amid the sleep cycle.  That stimuli engage the interpretive response systems of our brain, which matches the frequency or impact of that stimuli with its stores of sensory experience. The imagery we experience as dreams is how our dreaming brain identifies or interprets the impact of the neural resonance we experience in sleep.  That interpretation is sufficient for most of us to dismiss them from memory upon arousal from sleep.  Our dreams do not typically engage our physical responses because the neural resonance causing them does not emerge from concurrent physical reality.   

From my perspective, our brain engages in two types of responses to stimuli, which I term functional and behavioral.  Functional involves those brain processes associated with stimuli perception and assessment.  Behavioral responses are those expressed as the observable behaviors indicative of consciousness.  So, you might ask, what are these responses relative to brain structure and function?  Well, science suggests to me that all observable behavioral responses produced by our brain's functional responses emerge from the thalamus.  

I've recently gained a new perspective of thalamic function and how it appears to express our behavioral responses.  If there is interest, I will explore this with you in my next post as it involves a discussion of reflexive and reflective behavior and the nature of mind and consciousness relative to both. Until then, I welcome your thoughts.

I feel the essence of this question is of philosophy.

3 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

You say that as though it's a bad thing. I preceive reductionism as cutting away the fat from a choice piece of meat or simply defining the key components of a simple equation.

Didn't you notice that I said 'extremely reductionist'. And that I said:

18 hours ago, Eise said:

I have nothing against reductionism

To add: my position here is reductionist too: but to explain consciousness with such a global concept as homeostasis, is an example of 'nothing-buttery' ('nothing-but-ism'). The explanation of consciousness might lie in the mechanism how the brain arrives (or stays) in homeostasis. The most extreme case of nothing-buttery is of course to say we are nothing but hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and some other elements put together. So I mix this elements in a vat (pun intended...) and exclaim 'Ecce homo'!. Does the liver, reaching for homeostasis, also produces conscious behaviour?

I noticed that you did not react on my analogy of the workings of a microchip. You can be sure that a microchip really strives for getting the input currents and the output currents equal. But it explains nothing: a light bulb does that too. Without taking into account all the layers of how the components of a microchip work together, you explain nothing. Same with homeostasis.

The rest of your reaction is just a repetition of what you said in your postings before.

1 hour ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I feel the essence of this question is of philosophy.

As a philosopher, I completely agree. But I would invite you to deliver reactions on the content of a thread. If you really have something to say, or to ask, you are welcome. I wonder if you ever contributed to a topic, or only do some chitchat in your postings. This is a discussion platform.

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Wait...you're not a theVat sockpuppet are you???

Another inference might be that more than one person perceived weaknesses in your theory. Aren't you here for feedback?

11 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Homeostasis provides and explains the foundation from which brain function and, ultimately, behavioral expression arises.

Cognition is a complex process with multiple functional levels. You don't provide any grounds for making homeostasis fundamental in a way that makes that particular to brains and not other internal organs and systems. I don't "explain" how a deep ocean submarine works by saying it has a thermostat. We don't fully explain something with emergent properties by pointing at one causal element in an intricate web of such elements.

No doubt the thalamus is a critical hub in the brain. As is the fuse box in my house. But I cannot understand the fifth season of Game of Thrones playing on my television set simply by checking the breakers and how they're wired. That would ignore a vast web of other processes that allow talented and often blood and filth-coated British actors to manifest in our bedroom. Extreme reductionism has great difficulty accounting for emergent effects of complex causal webs.

Edited May 28May 28 by TheVat
oytogrhpcal

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

As I have previously commented, our thalamus is the primary gateway into brain structure for neural afference and, as such, the thalamus is the primary brain structure that is initially impacted by that afference. The thalamus desperses that afferent impact along various neural pathways to various cortical regions throughout brain structure. In turn, those various cortical regions respond to that impact via their reciprocal neural connections. With the reciprocal responses the thalamus receives, it then executes or engages our response to the afference it is or has experienced. In this view, the role of the thalamus is to alert superior brain structures that it has been impacted and the role of those superior brain structure is to deliver feedback defining that impact and how the thalamus should execute a response to that impact.

I welcome your continued interest.

The thalamus is not merely a "primary gateway" for all afferent signals in a unitary sense, nor is it correct to say that it initiates or executes responses in a top-down command fashion. Instead, the brain's sensory processing and response mechanisms are deeply recursive, parallel, and context-dependent.

First, the thalamus is functionally diverse. Specific thalamic nuclei, such as the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) for vision or the medial geniculate nucleus (MGN) for audition, are specialized relays, but even they do not operate as primary processors. Sensory information often undergoes pre-thalamic processing for example, in the retina or cochlear nuclei. before reaching the thalamus. Furthermore, the thalamus largely acts as a relay and modulator rather than a generator of motor or behavioral responses.

Second, the cortex is not merely "alerted" by the thalamus; rather, there is a dynamic, bidirectional interplay between thalamic and cortical structures. Thalamo-cortical loops are critical for consciousness, attention, and perception, but cortical feedback to the thalamus plays an equally significant role in shaping sensory input through processes like selective attention. Thus, it is reductive to suggest that the thalamus is the initiator and the cortex the respondent. Both structures co-construct perception and action readiness.

Moreover, the notion that the thalamus "executes our response" after receiving cortical feedback is an oversimplification. Motor responses are typically orchestrated by cortical motor areas, basal ganglia, cerebellum, and spinal motor circuits. The thalamus, especially its ventral anterior and ventral lateral nuclei, does relay information related to motor planning, but it does not engage in executive decision-making or response selection in the cognitive sense.

In modern neuroscience, models such as predictive coding and active inference suggest that both the thalamus and cortex are involved in a continuous loop of prediction and error correction, with no single structure holding a unilateral role as either executor or gatekeeper. The brain is better understood as a network of dynamically interacting regions, each contributing to sensory processing and behavioral response according to its specialization and current functional state.

9 hours ago, Eise said:

As a philosopher, I completely agree. But I would invite you to deliver reactions on the content of a thread. If you really have something to say, or to ask, you are welcome. I wonder if you ever contributed to a topic, or only do some chitchat in your postings. This is a discussion platform.

Thank you for the agreement, perhaps see some of my more recent postings, I would say they contribute

13 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

Wait...you're not a theVat sockpuppet are you???🤔

With all due respect, lets just not ok?

Greetings,

I see there's quite a bit here that's deserving of consideration and a thoughtful response, which I will attempt to do:

20 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

I feel the essence of this question is of philosophy.

If that feeling is based on the definition of consciousness I delivered in my opening statements to this discussion thread, I assure you a philosophy is not the essence I had hope to convey. As I thought I conveyed quite clearly in prior comments, I don't perceive or define consciousness as some transcendant quaility. I don't ascribe anything more to consciousness other than as the measure of sensory awareness I perceive as essential to the cognitive matrix of brain function that produces a mind.

18 hours ago, Eise said:

Didn't you notice that I said 'extremely reductionist'.

I did and I don't disagree. My compulsion is to find the essence of my choice of study and to build and convey my understanding from that essence.

19 hours ago, Eise said:

To add: my position here is reductionist too: but to explain consciousness with such a global concept as homeostasis, is an example of 'nothing-buttery' ('nothing-but-ism'). The explanation of consciousness might lie in the mechanism how the brain arrives (or stays) in homeostasis. The most extreme case of nothing-buttery is of course to say we are nothing but hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and some other elements put together. So I mix this elements in a vat (pun intended...) and exclaim 'Ecce homo'!. Does the liver, reaching for homeostasis, also produces conscious behaviour?

Perhaps it was my oversimplification that has caused some misperception. If I were using homeostasis to explain consciousness, in view of how I define consciousness, that explanation would have been about simple sensory awareness relative to brain function because sensory awareness is essentially all of what consciousness is to me. However, I agree that homeostasis is a global concept and process but, relative to behavioral expressions, it explains everything about what give rise to the brain functions that produce those expressions.

Indeed, homeostasis is an imperative of every biological system. but what affects that imperative in the brain ultimately give rise to the behaviors our brain function engages and expresses. For example, consider the drug addicted brain and the behaviors the presences and absences of that drug causes. Empirically, illicit drugs can and do affect the homeostatic status of brain function, which can and does produce thoughts and behaviors centered around those drug. Similarly--and to my point--all senory afferrence bare the same homeostatic destabilizing affect, which can and does produce behaviors and thoughts centered around that afferrence. Also, in furtherance of my perspective, the afferrence our brains are exchanging through this discussion, similarly compells and propells our further discussions and is attributable to the affects of that afference on our brain's homeostatic status.

20 hours ago, Eise said:

I noticed that you did not react on my analogy of the workings of a microchip. You can be sure that a microchip really strives for getting the input currents and the output currents equal. But it explains nothing: a light bulb does that too. Without taking into account all the layers of how the components of a microchip work together, you explain nothing. Same with homeostasis.

I acknowledge your analogy, but what I'm asserting isn't about cell striving for energy but rather about neural responses to suppress destabilizing effects, which to me is similar to noise cancelling technology.

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

Another inference might be that more than one person perceived weaknesses in your theory. Aren't you here for feedback?

I knew my comment would draw you in and your point is here is well made...I was just having a bit of fun.

12 hours ago, TheVat said:

Another inference might be that more than one person perceived weaknesses in your theory. Aren't you here for feedback?

Cognition is a complex process with multiple functional levels. You don't provide any grounds for making homeostasis fundamental in a way that makes that particular to brains and not other internal organs and systems. I don't "explain" how a deep ocean submarine works by saying it has a thermostat. We don't fully explain something with emergent properties by pointing at one causal element in an intricate web of such elements.

No doubt the thalamus is a critical hub in the brain. As is the fuse box in my house. But I cannot understand the fifth season of Game of Thrones playing on my television set simply by checking the breakers and how they're wired. That would ignore a vast web of other processes that allow talented and often blood and filth-coated British actors to manifest in our bedroom. Extreme reductionism has great difficulty accounting for emergent effects of complex causal webs.

I couldn't agree more. Cognition is indeed a complex process. In my response to Eise, I talked about the affect of drugs and drug addiction. As for grounds, I've tried to convey how sensory experience is an energy draw that impacts homostasis in brain and the brain's responses to that impact is essential similar to addiction. What make homeostasis in the brain difference from other organs is that the brain responds to destabilization differently that other organs because its reponses produces thoughts and behaviors while other organs don't appear to do so.

11 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

The thalamus is not merely a "primary gateway" for all afferent signals in a unitary sense, nor is it correct to say that it initiates or executes responses in a top-down command fashion. Instead, the brain's sensory processing and response mechanisms are deeply recursive, parallel, and context-dependent.

First, the thalamus is functionally diverse. Specific thalamic nuclei, such as the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) for vision or the medial geniculate nucleus (MGN) for audition, are specialized relays, but even they do not operate as primary processors. Sensory information often undergoes pre-thalamic processing for example, in the retina or cochlear nuclei. before reaching the thalamus. Furthermore, the thalamus largely acts as a relay and modulator rather than a generator of motor or behavioral responses.

Second, the cortex is not merely "alerted" by the thalamus; rather, there is a dynamic, bidirectional interplay between thalamic and cortical structures. Thalamo-cortical loops are critical for consciousness, attention, and perception, but cortical feedback to the thalamus plays an equally significant role in shaping sensory input through processes like selective attention. Thus, it is reductive to suggest that the thalamus is the initiator and the cortex the respondent. Both structures co-construct perception and action readiness.

Moreover, the notion that the thalamus "executes our response" after receiving cortical feedback is an oversimplification. Motor responses are typically orchestrated by cortical motor areas, basal ganglia, cerebellum, and spinal motor circuits. The thalamus, especially its ventral anterior and ventral lateral nuclei, does relay information related to motor planning, but it does not engage in executive decision-making or response selection in the cognitive sense.

In modern neuroscience, models such as predictive coding and active inference suggest that both the thalamus and cortex are involved in a continuous loop of prediction and error correction, with no single structure holding a unilateral role as either executor or gatekeeper. The brain is better understood as a network of dynamically interacting regions, each contributing to sensory processing and behavioral response according to its specialization and current functional state.

You are well studied and I cannot deny that thalamic function is more complex than I have commented here. Admittedly, I provided a simplistic view of the neural interplay between the thalamus and cortex to be more engaged by knowledgeable and less knowledgeable respondents to this discussion. However, there was something you stated here regarding the "thalamus largely acts as a relay and modulator rather than a generator of motor or behavioral responses." Much of what I understand about thalamic function is predicated decorticate and diencephalic animal studies, which suggest no cortical activity engages without a subcortical neural connection. I recall further stud[es which suggested decorticate animals at brith thrived and ambulated sufficiently without cortical structure. I will comment further, when I'm able to cite those studies here for your review. Until then, I welcome your continued interest.

29 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

You are well studied and I cannot deny that thalamic function is more complex than I have commented here. Admittedly, I provided a simplistic view of the neural interplay between the thalamus and cortex to be more engaged by knowledgeable and less knowledgeable respondents to this discussion. However, there was something you stated here regarding the "thalamus largely acts as a relay and modulator rather than a generator of motor or behavioral responses." Much of what I understand about thalamic function is predicated decorticate and diencephalic animal studies, which suggest no cortical activity engages without a subcortical neural connection. I recall further stud[es which suggested decorticate animals at brith thrived and ambulated sufficiently without cortical structure. I will comment further, when I'm able to cite those studies here for your review. Until then, I welcome your continued interest.

likewise! What a pleasant human you are =)

On 5/29/2025 at 12:48 AM, Sohan Lalwani said:

likewise! What a pleasant human you are =)

A few years ago, I wrote a book about the dreaming brain. In that book, I delivered a perspective of the thalamus basis on my research back then of the studies available. Here is a small list of those studies that help shape my current view of thalamic function, evolution of the dreaming brain, and brain function:

Brad, P. “A Diencephalic Mechanism for the Expression of Rage with Special Reference to the Sympathetic Nervous System.” AJP (1928): 84: 490-515.

Grill, H. J. and Norgren, R. “Neurological Tests and Behavioral Deficits in Chronic Thalamic and Chronic Decerebrate Rats.” Brain Res. (1978): 143(2): 299-312.

Moore, J. W., Yeo, C. H., Oakley, D. A., and Russell, I. S. “Conditioned Inhibition of the Nictitating Membrane Response in Decorticate Rabbits.” Behav Brain Res. (1980): 1(5): 397-409.

Oakley, D. A. “Performance of Decorticated Rats in a Two-Choice Visual Discrimination Apparatus.” Behav Brain Res. (1980): 3(1): 55-69.

Shewmon, D. A., Holmes, G. L., and Byrne, P. A. “Consciousness In Congenitally Decorticate Children: Developmental Vegetative State As Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” Dev Med Child Neurol, (1990): 41(6): 364-74.

Skinner, D. M., Martin, G. M., Harley, C., Kolb, B., Pridgar, A., Bechara, A., and Van derKooy, D. “Acquisition of Conditional Discriminations in Hippocampal Lesioned and Decorticated Rats:  Evidence for Learning That is Separate from Both Simple Classical Conditioning and Configural Learning.” Behav Neurosci. (1994): 108(5): 911-26.

Whishaw, I. Q. “The Decorticate Rat,” in B. Kolb and R. C. Tees (eds.), The Cerebral Cortex of the Rat. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990.

Whishaw, I. Q. and Kolb, B. “Decortication Abolishes Place but Not Cue Learning in Rats.” Behav Brain Res. (1984): 11(2): 123-34.

Although not referenced for the book I mentioned, I recall several cat studies over the years (e,g,, Behaviors of chronically decerebrated kittens) that fueled my thoughts on the position of cortical function in our brain's hierarchy. Decerebrate studies like those involving cats support what have become my perspective of our brain's likely path of evolution. One basic tenet of evolution is that recent biological developments are likely evolved or adapted version of some earlier form. Relative to brain structure our cortex, as I view its evolution, is a more recent development than the thalamus. As a recent adaptation, our cortical functionality is more dependent on thalamic function than thalamic function relative to the cortex. This secondary status of our cortex relative to the thalamus explains why we may survive severe cortical damage but will die when our thalamus suffers similarly severe damage. The importance of our thalamus to our survival and brain function is further emphasized, in my view, by it's shielded position, within our cerebral hierarchy, surrounded by structures that may not imperil our survival if damaged as damage to the thalamus might.

In my book, which I wouldn't recommend given how much my understanding of the dreaming brain has grown since then, I referred to the thalamus as a proto-brain remnant of our contemporary brain's evolution. With a right and left hemispherical cortical appearance, our thalamus likely function as the initial iteration of our contemporary brain. Relative to how current science theorize contemporary thalamic function, I have further thoughts but will hold them for now unless there's further interest.

On 5/29/2025 at 6:17 AM, DrmDoc said:

I did and I don't disagree. My compulsion is to find the essence of my choice of study and to build and convey my understanding from that essence.

A dangerous endeavor. 'Essentialism' , IMHO, is a wrong track when dealing with such a complicated phenomenon as consciousness.

On 5/29/2025 at 6:17 AM, DrmDoc said:

I acknowledge your analogy, but what I'm asserting isn't about cell striving for energy but rather about neural responses to suppress destabilizing effects, which to me is similar to noise cancelling technology.

Do not take the analogy too far. I only want to show that some overall principle does not explain anything. A computer chip tries the whole time not to get an overall charge under changing inputs, and does it by the physical means it has: but it is exactly the complexity of how these processes are running that make the chip useful in a computer. Not that it evens out input and output currents. To say it cryptically: the essence of the computer chip lies in its complexity. Without understanding the complexity, you do not understand the workings of the computer chip at all. Same with the brain: without understanding the complexity, you do not understand the workings of the brain at all.

On 5/29/2025 at 6:17 AM, DrmDoc said:

What make homeostasis in the brain difference from other organs is that the brain responds to destabilization differently that other organs because its reponses produces thoughts and behaviors while other organs don't appear to do so.

And this difference exactly is what we must understand. Not what the brain has in common with other organs.

15 hours ago, Eise said:

A dangerous endeavor. 'Essentialism' , IMHO, is a wrong track when dealing with such a complicated phenomenon as consciousness.

It appears that you've convinced yourself that consciousness is a "complicated phenomenon" That may be true for you but certainly not for anyone who has read and uderstood the definition for consciousness I provided in my openig comments to this discussion thread. The track I take to understanding consciousness in brain function involves the essence of that function, which involves its primary imperative--homeostasis.

16 hours ago, Eise said:

Do not take the analogy too far. I only want to show that some overall principle dThoes not explain anything. A computer chip tries the whole time not to get an overall charge under changing inputs, and does it by the physical means it has: but it is exactly the complexity of how these processes are running that make the chip useful in a computer. Not that it evens out input and output currents. To say it cryptically: the essence of the computer chip lies in its complexity. Without understanding the complexity, you do not understand the workings of the computer chip at all. Same with the brain: without understanding the complexity, you do not understand the workings of the brain at all.

Understanding the complexity of the brain begins with evaluating and understanding the function of those basic components that comprise its workings. As I have tried to convey through various posts on this subject, sensory afference, thalamic function and homeostasis are key components of brain function. How these components work in concert to affect cerebral brain responses should comprise our understanding of the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors our brain function produces.

16 hours ago, Eise said:

And this difference exactly is what we must understand. Not what the brain has in common with other organs.

You are responding here to my reply to theVat's posted opinion of not finding sufficient basis in my comments for my view of how homeostasis instability is any different in the brain than it is from other organs. The difference, as I tried to convey, is in the responses of the brain and of those other organs. As I explain, homeostasis instability is indeed a "global" concept with the added distinction that our brain responses to that instability produces thoughts and behaviors while other organs do not. Indeed, homeostasis is key to the function of every cell in our body but only our brain function produces thoughts and behaviors in response to homeostasis instability.

4 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

It appears that you've convinced yourself that consciousness is a "complicated phenomenon"

OK, I must make this more precise: the neural processes that give rise to consciousness are complicated. And I do not see what your operational definition of consciousness contributes to the discussion:

On 8/18/2024 at 8:07 PM, DrmDoc said:

the awareness suggested by an organism's observed behavioral responses to stimuli.

First I would suggest to add as a rule of thumb: the bigger the spectrum of possible actions, the better capability to foresee possible futures dependent on one's own actions (from elephants taking a detour because they know there will be a place to drink, to human animals building the LHC) etc, the more conscious an animal is. So yes, the complexer the spectrum of possible actions is, the complexer the physical system must be to generate such behaviour.

Second you are missing the first person perspective. I know I am aware, and because I can talk and coordinate actions with other individuals of my species, who also say they are aware, I attribute consciousness to them too. So what is missing:

Consciousness is the appearance of a world

Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel

4 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

The difference, as I tried to convey, is in the responses of the brain and of those other organs. As I explain, homeostasis instability is indeed a "global" concept with the added distinction that our brain responses to that instability produces thoughts and behaviors while other organs do not.

But exactly that is what must be explained, if you want to explain consciousness. The kidneys strive for homeostasis too, but they produce waste and lead it to the organs that can get rid of it in the external world. So the question is why does the brain 'produces thoughts and behaviours', and not, as an example, body waste. And that exactly is what need to be explained: what is special about the brain that it can 'produce thoughts and behaviours'?^* I cannot deny that some hierarchy between thalamus and cortex can play a role, I don't know enough about such matters, but I am sure that this Ansatz, how correct it might be, is never enough to explain consciousness.

^*If you want to be consistent with your definition of consciousness, you should only say 'behaviour'.

Edited June 4Jun 4 by Eise

17 hours ago, Eise said:

OK, I must make this more precise: the neural processes that give rise to consciousness are complicated. And I do not see what your operational definition of consciousness contributes to the discussion:

If one is focused on the philosophy of consciousness rather than science of consciousness, then I understand why one may not understand how my definition of consciousness contributes to this discussion. The philosophy of consciousness, in my opinion, perceives consciousness as some singular operant of our being or some etheral, overriding sense of self that comprise our individuality or nature. The science of consciousness tells us that it is merely the measure of awareness suggested by an organism's responses to stimuli. My definition contributes this discussion on the science of consciousness in brain function because science informs us that an organism cannot be assessed as having consciousness without awareness and awareness cannot be assessed without observable behavioral responses to stimuli that suggest an organism is in fact measurably aware.

17 hours ago, Eise said:

First I would suggest to add as a rule of thumb: the bigger the spectrum of possible actions, the better capability to foresee possible futures dependent on one's own actions (from elephants taking a detour because they know there will be a place to drink, to human animals building the LHC) etc, the more conscious an animal is. So yes, the complexer the spectrum of possible actions is, the complexer the physical system must be to generate such behaviour.

A tenet of evolution suggests to me that those complex physical systems you've described that give rise to complex behaviors are adaptions that likely evolved from less complex, earlier systems. If that tenet is true, then science suggest that some trace of that evolution and those earlier system should be evident among contemporary brain structure and function.

18 hours ago, Eise said:

Second you are missing the first person perspective. I know I am aware, and because I can talk and coordinate actions with other individuals of my species, who also say they are aware, I attribute consciousness to them too. So what is missing:

"I think; therefore, I am" is true but who would know that I or some other organism is possessed of any measure of consciousness without observable behaviors that, at a minimum, suggest that "I am"? This is important because understanding the nature and path of consciousness in brain function leads to an understanding of how that function creates a mind.

18 hours ago, Eise said:

But exactly that is what must be explained, if you want to explain consciousness. The kidneys strive for homeostasis too, but they produce waste and lead it to the organs that can get rid of it in the external world. So the question is why does the brain 'produces thoughts and behaviours', and not, as an example, body waste. And that exactly is what need to be explained: what is special about the brain that it can 'produce thoughts and behaviours'?^* I cannot deny that some hierarchy between thalamus and cortex can play a role, I don't know enough about such matters, but I am sure that this Ansatz, how correct it might be, is never enough to explain consciousness.

As I have tried to convey, I perceive the responses of the brain to homoestasis instability as something akin to noise-cancelling; whereas, other organs reponses appear to employ entirely different processes. The thalamus incessantly disperses neural impulses to all areas of the cortex when impacted by sensory afference, which it is at all times. This creates continuous homeostasis imbalance. Simplistically, those areas receiving thalamic dispersals become neurally attuned to the frequency of those impulses, which is what I perceive as memory and learning, then those areas generate comparable neural impulses or feedback to the thalamus to effectively buffer or suppress the thalamus incessant impulses. That feedback become the thoughts and behaviors our thalamus ultimately execute in response to the sensory afference impacting it's neural function. Unlike kidney function, I perceive the waves of neural exchanges between the thalamus and the cerebrum as I do sound and the entire process as our brain's attempt to modulate the neural resonance impacting its system. I welcome your continued interest.